Quite relieved, don't think I can read any more of this non-science at the moment.
Just come back from seeing friends, 2 of whom have known our daughter since birth and the other for prob over 15 years,
One of them says "Oh I hope this cloud will be lifted soon". You wouldn't say this about MS/RA/cancer.....
Then when I said I was really excited to be going to the International Biomedical Research into ME conference in June' the response was " Oh I didn't think they called it that any more!
So, much screaming and head banging later -after I get home, and virtual.; I rant on here as you will understand.
Thank you for being there.
Where's the emoji for gritted teeth when you need it.?!!!!!

Quite relieved, don't think I can read any more of this non-science at the moment.
Just come back from seeing friends, 2 of whom have known our daughter since birth and the other for prob over 15 years,
One of them says "Oh I hope this cloud will be lifted soon". You wouldn't say this about MS/RA/cancer.....
Then when I said I was really excited to be going to the International Biomedical Research into ME conference in June' the response was " Oh I didn't think they called it that any more!
So, much screaming and head banging later -after I get home, and virtual.; I rant on here as you will understand.
Thank you for being there.
Where's the emoji for gritted teeth when you need it.?!!!!!

Click to expand...

Just in case you don't know this is a response by David Tuller to the PACEtrial nonsense

Rather than acknowledging the flaws that others now see clearly, the investigators appear determined to persist with their current approach and resist any concession of error. Given this ill-advised and anti-scientific stance, they should prepare themselves for an even greater onslaught of questions and challenges from leading researchers, clinicians, and other experts, not to mention myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)/chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) patients and advocates. Their inadequate and non-responsive responses to tough but fair criticism have apparently served the PACE investigators well in previous exchanges, when few but Sir Simon Wessely were paying attention. That time has passed.

White also recently told The BMJ that it was unfair of critics to compare the high improvement rates from the Lancet paper with the lower improvement rates calculated from the protocol definition (Hawkes, 2016). “They’re comparing one measure with a completely different one—it’s apples and pears,” White said. Indeed it is. White and his colleagues took 5 million pounds in government funds and promised to bring back apples from the market. Instead they brought back pears, refusing to show anyone the apples they had rejected. Given the resources involved, it should not be hard to understand why people would want to examine those apples for themselves, to make their own comparisons with the pears and draw their own conclusions about whether their 5 million pounds were spent wisely. The investigators appear to view this public interest in accountability for public money as confusing or even offensive.

Honestly, really, the brain power per person on the side of the PACE critics far exceeds that of the PACE supporters. They're probably just as intelligent, its just they've just been trained within an an academic culture that values uncritical belief over critical analysis. So they just haven't had the chance to develop those skills.

White and his colleagues took 5 million pounds in government funds and promised to bring back apples from the market. Instead they brought back pears, refusing to show anyone the apples they had rejected.

Click to expand...

It's the magic beans they brought back which bother me, which they grew into a massive beanstalk up to their castle in the clouds. Nice to see Tuller taking an axe to it.

A New Treatment For Veterans In Need: Legal Assistance.Tuller D1.Abstract
To confront nonmedical barriers to care, some Department of Veterans Affairs clinics are embedding lawyers in their health care teams.

With the release of the trial data, it is no longer enough to have persuaded themselves, Sir Simon Wessely, and other adherents that their methods are sound and the findings robust. The larger scientific world is now scrutinizing both the study itself and the investigators’ defense of their work and has found their reasoning problematic and their intellectual position unsustainable.